Originally posted by debbiejo
Just an interesting thought. What if the baby had no soul/spirit when in the womb until some later months? Would that change any pro lifers stance.?...........Just curious?
I personally like to beleive that the second a sperm and egg fuse into a zygote, is when the soul is introduced.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Just an interesting thought. What if the baby had no soul/spirit when in the womb until some later months? Would that change any pro lifers stance.?...........Just curious?
Most wouldn't even accept the scenario. To the pro-life side, life is at the point of conception. Take away that point, and their entire argument crumbles...
On the other hand, if life does start at conception, the pro-choice's argument is shot down too...
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
1) Um........how about NO--you can take that idea and stick it.2) It aint contradictory--I think everyone should live. (and hypocrisy is not a bad thing)
btw: I think "good cravings" was yer first typo here on KMC, and it was quite a funny one considering the context and what we're talkin' about.
-DB
1) Nah.
2) It is contradictory. Your view is that women should give birth to any pregnancy, even rape, because "It ain't the baby's fault." Well if we're talking about who ISN'T to blame, then the woman isn't to blame for getting raped, which is of course why the baby exists. It's not her fault the baby exists. Ergo, it's even more undeniable that she has a complete say over what she does with it. There's no say for the guy because he's a foul rapist. She shouldn't have to deal with such a horrifying thing and you are a moron for saying she should. I told you this before and you said "Ok... 😕".
3) Why assume it was a typo? I said good cravings because craving for food when you are pregnant (IE: Supplying to the foetus) is a good thing. You are citing them as bad things.
-AC
Originally posted by crazylozer
Most wouldn't even accept the scenario. To the pro-life side, life is at the point of conception. Take away that point, and their entire argument crumbles...On the other hand, if life does start at conception, the pro-choice's argument is shot down too...
The Pro-Choice argument is that the right of the woman to control what happens in and to her body is more stringent than the right to life of the potential child.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The responsibility of carrying the child is not shared.
Well, tat is not the only responsibility though, is it? So jsut for the sake of it what about this:
The man has a say in it if he wants the kid to be aborted...if he wants that and the woman refuses he shouldn't face any responsibilities.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Huh?
I didn't write that well, did I? 😛
I meant, that, as the woman can prevent the pregnancy, it is her responsiblity to get her boyfriend to use protection, and it is her responsibility to get the contraceptive pill. The man can get her pregnant, but the woman can prevent it. So if she gets pregnant, it's her fault, it has nothing to do with him.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Child support is a bullshit law that should be erased from the books. Instead of giving half his paycheck to the woman, he should be able to be out of her and his unwanted kids life for good. I aint sayin' the kid should be aborted--the woman should support the child herself cuz she's the one who wanted the kid.
I agree. As I once stated, when the man wants to keep the baby, he has no say in it. If the woman wants to get rid of it, she can. But when the woman wants the baby, and the man doesn't, she is able to sue for child support, so the man has to pay for the upkeep of a child he never even wanted, for a choice he never made. (to keep the baby) I really think that if the woman wants the baby that bad, but needs financial support from her ex partner to support that child, she should be wondering why she even wants to keep the baby at all, especially if she isn't finanically equipped to take care of that child without receiving a monthly payment from a second party.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, tat is not the only responsibility though, is it? So jsut for the sake of it what about this:The man has a say in it if he wants the kid to be aborted...if he wants that and the woman refuses he shouldn't face any responsibilities.
Suppose a man and woman agree not to have children, and the woman becomes pregnant. If the woman decides to have the child, she will be breaking their agreement. In this instance, the man should be absolved of any responsibility.
Originally posted by Makedde
I agree. As I once stated, when the man wants to keep the baby, he has no say in it. If the woman wants to get rid of it, she can. But when the woman wants the baby, and the man doesn't, she is able to sue for child support, so the man has to pay for the upkeep of a child he never even wanted, for a choice he never made. (to keep the baby) I really think that if the woman wants the baby that bad, but needs financial support from her ex partner to support that child, she should be wondering why she even wants to keep the baby at all, especially if she isn't finanically equipped to take care of that child without receiving a monthly payment from a second party.
👆
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri3) Why assume it was a typo? I said good cravings because craving for food when you are pregnant (IE: Supplying to the foetus) is a good thing. You are citing them as bad things.
😆 🙄 Dude c'mon, it was a typo. You intended to say "food cravings".
There's nuthin good about pickles 'n icecream. Not only would that taste like shit, its prolly not the best thing in the world for the developing baby.
😆.....I can't believe you're actually trying to defend that blatant typo.
Originally posted by Makedde
I agree. As I once stated, when the man wants to keep the baby, he has no say in it. If the woman wants to get rid of it, she can. But when the woman wants the baby, and the man doesn't, she is able to sue for child support, so the man has to pay for the upkeep of a child he never even wanted, for a choice he never made. (to keep the baby) I really think that if the woman wants the baby that bad, but needs financial support from her ex partner to support that child, she should be wondering why she even wants to keep the baby at all, especially if she isn't finanically equipped to take care of that child without receiving a monthly payment from a second party.
Unfortunately, this has nothing at all to do with abortion.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Suppose a man and woman agree not to have children, and the woman becomes pregnant. If the woman decides to have the child, she will be breaking their agreement. In this instance, the man should be absolved of any responsibility.
That is a very reasonable solution I think.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri3) Why assume it was a typo? I said good cravings because craving for food when you are pregnant (IE: Supplying to the foetus) is a good thing. You are citing them as bad things.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
😆 🙄 Dude c'mon, it was a typo. You intended to say "food cravings".There's nuthin good about pickles 'n icecream. Not only would that taste like shit, its prolly not the best thing in the world for the developing baby.
😆.....I can't believe you're actually trying to defend that blatant typo.
'That's gotta be the worth of boast worlds.'
Sorry, Alan, don't you mean the worst of both worlds?
'No, I do mean 'the worth of boast worlds'. IE in the world of boasters- not the biscuits, people who boast- their worth...is..'
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
😆 🙄 Dude c'mon, it was a typo. You intended to say "food cravings".There's nuthin good about pickles 'n icecream. Not only would that taste like shit, its prolly not the best thing in the world for the developing baby.
😆.....I can't believe you're actually trying to defend that blatant typo.
Unfortunately Dime, you are bang wrong. It wasn't a typo, it was technically what I meant and you have failed to realise that.
Read the small print on your cone-tract.
-AC